Failing to stop

[inreb]

Forum Sponsor

Who's the boss - sounds like a peeing contest to me. If you're the boss because you pay taxes that pay my salary, am I not also partly self-employed because I pay taxes too?

Everybody knows piss should be flat on the plate, what's wrong with a little fair play? And ya, you're partly self employed alright do as you please.

 

[ZX600]

Gixxer_flexx, every time someone runs, it's a new investigation. They are never identical, and each case has intricacies that set it apart from the one before it. I've had riders that are identifiable by their facial features, even with a full-face helmet. I've had riders that because of their stature make them unique or easier to identify. How about the one that crashes the bike and abandons it, only to be found with injuries that are consistent with a bike crash, or DNA left at the scene? The list is almost endless, and it would be hard to describe every possible minutia.

There are a lot of variables in your scenario, and a lot of possible outcomes. Based on what you've told me there's not a lot to go on. I'll play along, and answer what I can.

When I get to the house, I ask to speak with the registered owner of the vehicle. I would have some questions about the use of the motorcycle, who has access to it, when they might have used it, who has keys to it, when was it used last, where is it now, etc. I would need some answers to those questions to move forward in this scenario.
.

I have mentioned it many times, this is why you do not answer any questions or speak to a cop! He will use your answers to build his case - If you say nothing he has no way to go on (in this example)

 

[Two50noob]

I have mentioned it many times, this is why you do not answer any questions or speak to a cop! He will use your answers to build his case - If you say nothing he has no way to go on (in this example)

Plus 1

 

[rutakin]

I have mentioned it many times, this is why you do not answer any questions or speak to a cop! He will use your answers to build his case - If you say nothing he has no way to go on (in this example)

seems to be huge issues....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...police_database_never_convicted_analysis.html

When Rick Perreault tried to volunteer for the Children’s Aid Society in Sudbury four years ago, he had no concerns about providing the mandatory police records check.

He considered himself an upstanding and law-abiding citizen who had worked for the City of Sudbury before becoming a federal employee.

To his amazement, an incident 15 years earlier when he had disciplined his young son appeared.

The son, then 10, was acting up in the back seat of the car and teasing his two younger brothers while Perreault was driving.

“I reached behind me and lightly tapped him on the knee as I was driving down a very busy highway,” Perrault recalls. “About a week after that, two police officers showed up at my place of work and asked my manager if I would step outside.”

It seems someone driving in the car behind him had reported him to police.

He explained what happened to the officers, both fathers, who then apologized for the trouble. No charges. No convictions.

“I thought that was the end of it.”

Not so.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That event would have appeared in the record search, whether or not he had spoken to police. Without speaking to police the incident report would have lacked any context.

Any blanket statement like "never talk to police" is going to be invalid, on its face.

 

[Two50noob]

seems to be huge issues....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...police_database_never_convicted_analysis.html

When Rick Perreault tried to volunteer for the Children’s Aid Society in Sudbury four years ago, he had no concerns about providing the mandatory police records check.

He considered himself an upstanding and law-abiding citizen who had worked for the City of Sudbury before becoming a federal employee.

To his amazement, an incident 15 years earlier when he had disciplined his young son appeared.

The son, then 10, was acting up in the back seat of the car and teasing his two younger brothers while Perreault was driving.

“I reached behind me and lightly tapped him on the knee as I was driving down a very busy highway,” Perrault recalls. “About a week after that, two police officers showed up at my place of work and asked my manager if I would step outside.”

It seems someone driving in the car behind him had reported him to police.

He explained what happened to the officers, both fathers, who then apologized for the trouble. No charges. No convictions.

“I thought that was the end of it.”

Not so.

Even if he had not spoke to them this contact would still be on record as all contacts with individuals will be recorded. The issue is with the scope of these checks. They should really be focused on convictions. But saying that you may have people who were investigated for but not convicted of Rape/Child abuse/Child porn working in vulnerable sectors so how do you balance that. Cause as soon as one of those people gets a job or volunteer position working with kids and something goes happens everyone will loose their **** and ask why it didnt come up. So how do you balance it. Also keep in my their are protections against the in employment law. Volunteer like in the case you link not so much as its not covered under it,

 

[Two50noob]

That event would have appeared in the record search, whether or not he had spoken to police. Without speaking to police the incident report would have lacked any context.

Any blanket statement like "never talk to police" is going to be invalid, on its face.

If you are being questioned with a crime you are suspected of being involved in I would agree with the statement. If a cop turned up at my door today and said your neighbours car was vandalized and witnesses said you have been in an argument with him i would not be speaking to them (Well i might it would just depend but if it was an assault or murder they want me to talk about then absolutely no way). Now if i called the cops and they want to take a statement for something then i'm fine with it

 

[PLau]

@MLadin - I've chosen not to reveal my name or badge on an open forum because of the potential for misuse/abuse. There are just too many users that may view that info that haven't been posting, aka the silent members, and I cringe when I think of someone personating me. Rest assured, if you need to know, you can always send me a message and we can meet up.

Cell phones - the OPP have made this one of the "Big Four" enforcement items, which include speeding, impaired operation, cell phones, and seatbelts. With that said, I look for them and lay the charge whenever I see them, and whenever I can meet the burden of proof required by our court. That means, I can't assume it's a cell phone just because I see someone holding a similar item, it could be an IPod or something, and I have to be able to testify that what I saw meets the definition as set out by the regulations. The fact is that these days drivers are getting better at hiding them when they are texting, they will hold them down low where it is difficult to see. Used to be, they would text on top of the steering wheel. For those carrying on conversations, they are easier to spot, and I'm seeing more people talking on speakerphone but while still holding the phone in their hand - which is still prohibited. Every once in a while I see an interesting one like someone holding the bluetooth device while their cellphone is in the cupholder, or even affixing their phone to their head with an rubberband. There's a term for that one that I won't share here...

I don't think MLadin would want to meet you considering (from what I remember) he has a few self-incriminating posts.

In regards to holding a cellphone - I thought the law states that the operator of a vehicle cannot operate a hand held electronic device which includes ipods. Maybe you can pull that law up


nvm - edit:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_090366_e.htm

On a side note, saw a female YRP officer holding an iphone in one hand in front of her face with both earbuds in and talking while driving- I'm sure thats illegal... If not, very unprofessional. I wish some cops could follow the laws they're enforcing...

 

[uncleduck]

My lawyer gave me a card of what to do in some instance's, will post if can find it..........................

 

[Two50noob]

My lawyer gave me a card of what to do in some instance's, will post if can find it..........................

 

[uncleduck]

yea that's him

 

[-Maverick-]

First of all pretty sure that video is fake but... but why don't you do it video and post your results here. Try it in a DUI check point for extra points

So many Pavlovian responses here. This movement is being generated in the United States where they are losing their rights. Nazi Germany required you to stop and show your papers such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_3dDNPwJTU&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyzs7jlIw0&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw&sns=em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE&sns=em

Plus a gazillion other videos. Know your rights or surrender them to high school students with badges.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[uncleduck]

It's a material world what else are you going to expect except canned pavlovian answers. Wal-mart is taking over the world in 5 years, get your
supplies there and get the bunkers ready.

 

[Bike Cop]

I don't think MLadin would want to meet you considering (from what I remember) he has a few self-incriminating posts.

In regards to holding a cellphone - I thought the law states that the operator of a vehicle cannot operate a hand held electronic device which includes ipods. Maybe you can pull that law up


nvm - edit:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_090366_e.htm

On a side note, saw a female YRP officer holding an iphone in one hand in front of her face with both earbuds in and talking while driving- I'm sure thats illegal... If not, very unprofessional. I wish some cops could follow the laws they're enforcing...

There is an exemption for police under that section... but not so you can rock out while on patrol. I doubt very much that she would have the support of YRP administration if someone raised the issue.

 

[Two50noob]

So many Pavlovian responses here. This movement is being generated in the United States where they are losing their rights. Nazi Germany required you to stop and show your papers such as this:

Plus a gazillion other videos. Know your rights or surrender them to high school students with badges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 of your videos is from a DHS checkpoint - In the US its you are within your rights as a US citizen to refuse to answer their questions(Their may also be a question to their constitutionality but no formal ruling) - Does not apply in Canada
2 of them are from Las Vagas DUI checkpoints in Nevada the legality of these checkpoint is currently in question (although they will probably deemed legal despite their use as another immigration checkpoint in some counties). In Canada you can refuse to answer the cops questions of "have you been drinking" but be aware you cannot refuse to give a sample of breath or refuse to show proper id or insurance if requested. DUI checkpoints are fully legal in Canada. Feel free to drag this encounter out as long as you wish thats your prerogative. Since DUI is a serious problem with serious consequences i don't have a problem with this enforcement activity.
The last video is of a pretty much none encounter with the police. In most states (but not all) and in Canada you are legaly entitled to film an officer in a public space during the execution of their duties as long as you do not interfere with their duties. Unless in some specific circumstances you also cant be compelled to speak to the police but they can speak at you and talk to you as much as they want.

How you choose to interact with the police is upto you. Please film you encounters and post them here i always find them entertaining. But make sure you have the correct information on your rights. Watching US videos or freeman stuff will get you into trouble. Here is a html version of the CCLA guide to police encounters http://svan.ca/police-rights/ (I posted this before). This is the relevant information if you are going to take a stand make sure you get it from a reputable source like the CCLA.

Also nice Godwin..

 

[Apollo95]

Bike Cop,
you have been very receptive and reasonable on all posts i've seen so far.

I'm a spirited driver/rider. I just want to share that, truly on our roads the average speeds exceed the posted limits.
and there are a lot of drivers/riders who simply travel in a straight line (not doing anything in a dangerous fashion) and makes passes once in a while. these operators are being penalized by the police, and it is truly unjust. when travelling on a road where average speeds exceed the posted limits by 20-30kmh, making a pass makes these individuals look like hooligans, even though that is not the case. and absolutely does not justify charges under HTA 172.

However, when i see drivers weaving in and out of traffic at high rates of speed with no concern or calculated foresight of what is ahead, those drivers deserve to be pulled over for speeding and at times even for HTA 172.

This variance is making competent drivers who are simply operating their vehicles in a safe manner but being penalized, hate the police. or at times on bikes, run from the police.

This is the case. I have noticed you have been receptive and i hope you can pass this on to your fellow officers to perhaps create a better atmosphere all around for everyone.
just target the individuals who hold up rate of flow, restricting passing and causing agitation and traffic jams. and the individuals who are just passing weaving in and out in manner that truly endangers the public.
be just.

at least let the police cooperate with the public until Ontario's archaic road speeds and licensing are fixed. otherwise, we all end up truly hating the police and they are seen as quota running, revenue generating, blind corner/downhill hiding bullies out to harass the public, rather than serve, protect and earn the respect of their fellow citizens.

 

[Evoex]

In Canada you can refuse to answer the cops questions of "have you been drinking" but be aware you cannot refuse to give a sample of breath or refuse to show proper id or insurance if requested. DUI checkpoints are fully legal in Canada.

Not entirely accurate. You can certainly refuse a breathalyzer test at a road side stop. However it's a dumb move as you will be charged and the charge is technically the same as blowing and failing (impaired driving). So you're always better off blowing, at least you have a number you can fight in court.

 

[conundrum]

Bike Cop,
you have been very receptive and reasonable on all posts i've seen so far.

I'm a spirited driver/rider. I just want to share that, truly on our roads the average speeds exceed the posted limits.
and there are a lot of drivers/riders who simply travel in a straight line (not doing anything in a dangerous fashion) and makes passes once in a while. these operators are being penalized by the police, and it is truly unjust. when travelling on a road where average speeds exceed the posted limits by 20-30kmh, making a pass makes these individuals look like hooligans, even though that is not the case. and absolutely does not justify charges under HTA 172.

However, when i see drivers weaving in and out of traffic at high rates of speed with no concern or calculated foresight of what is ahead, those drivers deserve to be pulled over for speeding and at times even for HTA 172.

This variance is making competent drivers who are simply operating their vehicles in a safe manner but being penalized, hate the police. or at times on bikes, run from the police.

This is the case. I have noticed you have been receptive and i hope you can pass this on to your fellow officers to perhaps create a better atmosphere all around for everyone.
just target the individuals who hold up rate of flow, restricting passing and causing agitation and traffic jams. and the individuals who are just passing weaving in and out in manner that truly endangers the public.
be just.

at least let the police cooperate with the public until Ontario's archaic road speeds and licensing are fixed. otherwise, we all end up truly hating the police and they are seen as quota running, revenue generating, blind corner/downhill hiding bullies out to harass the public, rather than serve, protect and earn the respect of their fellow citizens.

^THIS imo -- It truly doesn't make sense to me either how a road can have a limit of 80 or 100 but have the average traffic flow at least 15-20km faster than the posted legal limit. This is especially true on a bike -- If you try to do 80 in an 80 and everyone else is doing 95-100, all it takes is the guy behind not paying attention (cellphone, looking at radio, etc) and you're rear-ended and either dead or injured. I remember reading before speed limits should be set in such a way that 85% of drivers would not exceed the posted limit, and that clearly isn't the case on a lot of roads today, including our 400-series highways.

Also, although it would be a lot harder to enforce, imo 172 and similar infractions should be left for those who clearly do not care about their own safety nor the lives of those around them. I was on the 401 last night around 12ish in the morning, and watched a car come up at a very high rate of speed behind me (and I was not going slow I was going the speed of traffic), pass closely on my right, brake harshly to avoid hitting the car now in front of him, weaving in front of me, then taking off at least 40-50km/h faster than I was going. I then saw him repeat the same thing about 5-6 more times before disappearing from view. Atleast imo speed doesn't kill as much as repeatedly changing lanes and disrupting the flow of traffic does, as it is MUCH more likely for that to cause accidents and loss of life than someone doing 125km/h down an open highway with no other vehicles in sight.

OPP have made this one of the "Big Four" enforcement items, which include speeding, impaired operation, cell phones, and seatbelts.

Given how limits will likely never change in Ontario like they have in BC and parts of the US, it would really be nice to see these 'big four' modified to be be/read: dangerous driving, impaired operation, cellphones, and seatbelts. This would allow police to target those who disrupt the flow of roadways and cause accidents, vs nailing someone for doing 120km/h on an empty 401 or 90km/h on an open country road. It also seems odd and oxymoronic that some could be hit both with HTA 147 (left lane hog) and HTA 128 (speeding) at the same time, but in theory it could happen in Ontario.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Given how limits will likely never change in Ontario like they have in BC and parts of the US, it would really be nice to see these 'big four' modified to be be/read: dangerous driving, impaired operation, cellphones, and seatbelts. This would allow police to target those who disrupt the flow of roadways and cause accidents, vs nailing someone for doing 120km/h on an empty 401 or 90km/h on an open country road. It also seems odd and oxymoronic that some could be hit both with HTA 147 (left lane hog) and HTA 128 (speeding) at the same time, but in theory it could happen in Ontario.

To my mind simple speeding has become far too much of an enforcement issue, when other behaviours are far more dangerous. The simple truth is that speed is the low hanging fruit. You apply a numeric value. Black and white. Easy to obtain a conviction. This, in my opinion, is the primary reason why speed has become such an issue and not because it's actually the most dangerous thing on the roads.

The measure of justice shouldn't be what's easy.

Roughly twice a month I'll see someone driving at speed along the breakdown lane to pass slow moving traffic. I don't mean just passing a car or two, but rather a hundred or more. I see people extending their advanced green lights by as much as 5 seconds, on a daily basis. Maybe once a week I see someone pull the HTA 172 racing trick of turning across the path of traffic when the light goes green. All of these behaviours are oh, so much more dangerous than simple speeding and yet I never seem to see these people get caught.

 

[rye]

So me and a buddy got pulled over this week in Niagara Falls... going a little too quickly down River Rd and I didn't see the motorcycle cop right behind us.... so, flashing lights turned on, and I instinctively pulled over, as did my pal. Long story short, they let us go with a warning and were quite appreciative that we didn't try to run and endanger our lives, their lives, and the public's lives...so, sometimes it's just better to stop. Btw, this could have been a 172 scenario....so....I was ******** my pants while I was waiting to see what was going to happen. lol But...they were some really cool cops, I must say...

pulledover2 by feliks.ca, on Flickr

Forum Sponsor